NEW DELHI: A debate
on whether the Supreme Court could entertain PILs based on
parliamentary standing committee reports turned fiery before a
five-judge constitution bench on Thursday with the Centre
accusing the SC of going far beyond its constitutionally
mandated jurisdiction.

Senior advocate
Harish Salve argued that the SC seeking answers from the
government on PILs based on parliamentary standing panel reports
would amount to the constitutional impropriety of judiciary
scrutinising Parliament's work.

The issue under
contention was how far the SC could go in exercise of powers
conferred on it under Article 142 of the Constitution. The CJI
said, "Article 142 is exercised where we feel complete justice
is to be done. When we make a set of guidelines, we act only
when the Constitution or legislature is silent on a particular
issue that disturbs society like female foeticide, ecological
balance, eve-teasing and other such issues."

The bench said it
had taken up issue for adjudication to avoid constitutional
discomfort between Parliament and judiciary. The bench's
tentative view was the court may not accept the findings in a
parliamentary standing panel report, but there was no harm in
allowing a petitioner to rely on it.

Salve had said standing committee reports were of persuasive
nature and it was for Parliament to decide what was needed to be
done on that score. "If Parliament decides not to accept a
standing committee report and the SC acts on the basis of the
report to force the government to accept the recommendations, it
will create friction between judiciary and Parliament."